Grey Haze Comments - Brought to you by JoeUserhttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/rss/comments© 2006 - 2008 Stardock Corporation. All rights reserved.Caution: May cause Contaminationen-us2008-10-06T13:01:002008-10-06T13:01:00http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rss/rss.htmlStardock Rss Generator v1.0, Andrew Powellinfo@stardock.comapowell@stardock.comphilomedyhttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/70506
However, a tiny hypocrisy is just as lethal as a large dose.. don't you think?


I think its more a gateway to the lethal doses...at the same time, I think we have to pick our battles.
]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/70506http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/70506Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01philomedy on Well How do you like That?philomedyhttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/70506 There's still a difference between gangs and terrorists, and so the hypocrisy, while still present, I'd like to say is not as pronounced...I know that's not the right wording for it, but I can't think of any other way to say it. I hope you get what I mean. If not, let me know and I'll try to clarify.

I don't advocate violence, I just want the equality you hear Myrrander and Dabe try to defend for others.. but they wish to rob it from those who they do not agree with. "You don't agree with me, you aren't human anymore nor deserve ANY RIGHTS"... isn't that bigotry?


It is bigotry, but I'm not sure that I've ever seen them do that, as much as I've seen them express disdain for a particular other group. And in that case, you have to look at who is speaking before you decide if it is bigotry or not. I hate the Aryan Nation because the Aryan Nation wants me dead. If I were white, I would disagree with the Aryan Nation, so the Aryan Nation would want me dead. I don't that's bigotry on my part. ]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/70506http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/70506Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01philomedy on Well How do you like That?philomedyhttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/70506
Inner City gangs that comprise solely of African Americans that commit violent crimes would not have been okay to target in the whole "Feed them poison and watch them all die!" Talking about poisoning the Vice Lords, especially by a white individual, would be an affront to decency.


Inner city gangs are not the same thing as a national organization that is hell bent on the annihilation of all but the white race. The common thread running through the Al Qaeda and the Aryan Nation is that of the terrorist organization. Inner city gangs are not that. They're not good, but they're not terrorists either.

That being said, I agree with you that they should be fair game for someone that wants to make comments about them. I never said I didn't.

That's the issue, it is NOT OKAY to pick on a group (extremists or not) if you can't pick on others. That is not fair, balanced, or equal. You can't claim it to be.


I don't. I don't claim the world to be. However, you have to look at the relationship between who is being picked on, and who is doing the picking. Regardless, I believe you can say anything you want about anybody, so what are we arguing about.

Basically, Philomedy.. since the Aryan Nation is an extremist group who believe in inferiority of everyone but themselves, it makes it okay to target them? Since they don't believe in co-existance (as most liberals do) they should be targets of violence? When did two wrongs make a right? I don't pretend to favor their ideals or methods, but discrimination is just that, discrimination... If someone does not believe in your beliefs, you should target them?.. That's what the Aryan's do. They do not believe in co-existance and therefore target those they do not like. You do not like the Aryans, so you target them..that's okay


No one's saying anyone should be a target of anything. I'm not saying its ok to violently attack anyone. Everyone talks about people/groups that they dislike or fear (justifiably or otherwise). If you want to take that to mean that I'm advocating violence, that's your thing.

See, the thing is that people didn't take the remark as a black vs. white racial thing, they took it as a people vs. aryan nation thing. Similarly, any comments made about gangs shouldn't be taken as racial, just as a people vs. violent gangs comment. ]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/70506http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/70506Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01philomedy on Well How do you like That?philomedyhttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/70506 I think the difference lies because the Aryan Nation is understood to be an extremist group of people who believe in the inferiority of everyone but themselves, and who would have no qualms about killing and denying rights to those that they believe to be inferior. The same thing with Al Qaeda...shouldn't someone have been offended because the "Kabooms" comment implies that all Muslim/Arab people are terrorist. No. It is realized that Al Qaeda is also an extremist group that is not representative of Muslims or Arabs.

]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/70506http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/70506Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01philomedy on Well How do you like That?thatoneguyinslchttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/66558 By posting this you proved you are not "being assimilated insidiously into the very ignorant culture I currently depise without my knowledge".

You are aware of what is going on around you and choose not to be sucked in. ]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/66558http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/66558Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01thatoneguyinslc on Thank you, JUKarmaGirlhttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/62797
Zone Alarm Pro

Ack......Zone Alarm....Ack...oh the horror of it all..... 

]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/62797http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/62797Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01KarmaGirl on Wi Fi CloudsXXhttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/62797 Using 128 bit WEP isn't quite enough. I also filter MAC addresses and turn off SSID broadcast. Makes it harder for hacker to get into my network.]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/62797http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/62797Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01XX on Wi Fi Cloudsthatoneguyinslchttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/62797 One more thing,

When anybody who can be considered a newbie (not you Helix) asks me about firewalls, i always tell them to get Zone Alarm Pro. It offers pretty good security with probably the easiest interface out there.

Also, i hear you when it comes to security. I run all Cisco core equipment (PIX firewall/1760 router /2950 switch), and use PGP to encrypt anything sensitive. You just can't be too careful nowadays.]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/62797http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/62797Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01thatoneguyinslc on Wi Fi Cloudsthatoneguyinslchttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/62797 Well i have to agree when it comes to the techie challenged. I remember when my mom got digital cable and i set up a home network for her. I spent weeks doing "tech support" calls with her over the smallest things.

It is true that setting up an encrypted network can be complicated. I have had more issues setting up WEP than i care to admit. But i think in the very near future you will see the industry fill the need for streamlined WI FI security. Which will make it a lot easier on all of us.

Let's just hope it's soon.

]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/62797http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/62797Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01thatoneguyinslc on Wi Fi Cloudsthatoneguyinslchttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/62797 It's funny you posted this Helix.

I happen to be in the wireless biz. I am in fact in NYC right now checking out a hotel that has an existing (and crappy) wi-fi system. Which is seriously lacking any security at all. The hotel has asked my company to up grade it because of these issues.

Most WAP's (wireless access points) have a feature called WEP encryption. WEP is a security protocol that can "lock out" any potential user that does not have network credentials (IE: logon name and password) to the network. WEP constantly changes the data encryption so as not to give a hacker one target piece of encryption to hack on for a long period of time. There are a few different levels of security available, most commonly 40 bit and 128 bit (the best, it's the same encryption your bank uses for online transactions). So if a WAP is configured correctly, 99.5 percent of hackers cannot break into an AP.

Some companies use other technologies to maintain security. My company STSN (don't ask what it stands for cuz i don't really know) does it a little differently. (I can't explain most of it here because of a confidentiality agreement i signed when i took the job)We use hardware firewalls and a few other tricks to maintain network security. In fact we just recieved a patent on our process. It's a tough thing maintianing solid network security because no matter how good your setup is, there's always somebody with the gonads and the ability to take a shot at you, and if not him/her, millions of other wanna be's that might get lucky.

My advice to you is that if you use WI FI on a regular basis is that you use a software firewall such as Zone Alarm Pro, Black Ice Etc. Don't use the Microsoft one though, it's a piece of crap. Also make sure to disable the share feature on your hard drive. If you don't than anyone who can hack the network can look at everything on your hard drive.

One last thing. If you are using a program like Intel Pro set (default for all centrino laptops) or a few others, you can tell if WEP is enabled. Look for the padlock Icon on the left side of the WAP's network name. That is not to say if is not there the WAP has no security features. For instance, my company desn't show it when you find one of our WAP's. But it's there. Always make sure if you are going to be using a public WI FI system that you go read up on their security setup. Most Large providers like T-mobile, STSN (were #2 in WI FI) and Boingo have info on their websites about their security.

Hope this helps

]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/62797http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/62797Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01thatoneguyinslc on Wi Fi CloudsDraginolhttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Gives me a headache just seeing someone compare evolution to space alien seeding as being "equally plausible".

Evolution is a theory. But some people here don't seem to grasp that there is a big difference between a theory and a hypothesis or even a hypothesis and a random guess pulled out of ones rear end.

There are a lot of things we don't know "for a fact".  We don't know, for a fact, precisely how gravity works. We don't know, for a fact, precisely how magnetism works.  We have pretty solid theories on these things.  Evolution is one of those kinds of theories.  Luckily, most educated people do believe in evolution as it is how many of our medical advances are arriving. Whether that be genetically modified foods, DNA based medicines, studies on fruit flies and other past control systems, etc. Evolution, as a theory, is something that is applied by researchers all the time.  To equate that to a hypthesis that some magical super being just whipped everything out as-is defies any sort of sense.

Believing in evolution does not make religion false or wrong or whatever. But I'd be pretty pissed off if some ignorant religious zealots forced stickers onto my kid's science books.  Because why not stop there? Let's put stickers on everything that's a theory.

Because when you come right down to it, there's not a lot of things we know "for a fact".  Evolutions, however, is about as close to a fact as we're going to get minus a time machine to be able to sit through and watch some large bear spending increasingly high amounts of time in the water until one day, one is born with paddled feet (a deformity) and it turns out that he is better at catching food than the rest. Over time, that gene is passed on to others and fast forward millions of years and you have whales who still, in their skeleton, have the remnants of leg bones.  Or the example of birds in the Pacific where flightless birds dot Pacific islands and no mammals or reptiles live since you would need flight to have gotten there in thef irst place.  Or the cases of elephants who got trapped on Madagascar milliosn of years ago when the island broke off from Africa and ended up tiny (unfortunately, the natives killed them all shortly after they arrived). 

The fossil record AND the DNA record is replete with examples of how evolution has worked. The actual lab evidence backs up the theories of specieis evolving into new species.  Reading some of these posts make sme wonder if some people have bothered to even read up on evolution or whether they're stuck with the propaganda fed to them 30 years ago.  Just in the past 5 or so years, thanks to DNA research, we've confirmed many aspects of evolution. And we rely on the mechanisms of evolution for all kinds of research that we benefit from every day.  If you don't believe in evolution, you should probably stop eating things like corn or oranges and when you see a dog, just close your eyes and say "you're not here..you're not here" because one wouldn't want to recognize the obvious changes dogs have undergone just in the past 10,000 years due to human tampering with dogs (imagine how much they'd change given 10 million years).

]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01Draginol on Evolution, Fact or Theory?Solitairhttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050 The Theory of evolution and the Theory of life are two mutually exclusive theories. Many people here (and certainly the people who put such a sticker on the biology book) are confusing the two.

The Theory of evolution is a proven theory which predicts that species will evolve based on their surroundings, and that the most fit evolution will domitate it's fellows. It cannot and does not predict how they will evolve. That's it. The entire sum of the theory. Nothing more. Nothing anyone can find fault with or claim is unknown or not proven.

The Theory of Life attempts to describe where life came from and how it reached the stage it is at today. It consists of two distinct parts, the generation and the evolution. The evolution part relies on the theory of evolution to say that all higher forms of life have evolved from the lowest forms, while the generation part attempts to explain where the original lowest form of life came from. This theory is not fully proven. The evolution side of the theory is fairly well accepted with year upon year of further discoveries and research proving that evolution could potentially go from an amoeba to a human. It only proves the concept, not the fact though. The generation side is far less accepted though. Many experiments have shown that the basic amino acids (building blocks for RNA) can be generated from the right chemical soup, and were very possibly present in early earth (hence much of the scientific interest in the Huygen probe looking at primevil worlds, and in comets). What is still not proven though is the way these initial amino acids can form basic living cells. Part of the problem is the huge length of time and number of evolutions required to achieve this. The concept is fairly scientifically sound but the complete experiment has yet to be done and verified.

Therefore the Theory of Life is not yet proven, though it is scientifically sound and expected to be proven if enough time existed to experiment in. Even if/when eventualyl proven it does not in any way rule out the existence of a supreme being. Just says that none was specifically required to go from big bang to humans. Whether one was present and guided things is entirely a matter of belief.

Paul.
]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01Solitair on Evolution, Fact or Theory?dabehttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050
You truly are pitiable.


Gee, guy, I guess it was just too friggin' complicated for you. Oh, I get it, alright. I get it just fine. I refuse to bow to the small mindedness of the constituionally challenged and the religious fundamentalists who espouse creationism. IT'S RELIGION, STUPID]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01dabe on Evolution, Fact or Theory?kingbeehttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050a lil more than 40 years ago, america was badly embarrassed by a seeming inability to successfully launch a rocket into space (as opposed to successfully blowing them up either where they stood or a few feet above the launch platform, getting them to go sideways not to mention the breathtaking boomerang rocket that headed in the right direction only to suddenly reverse course).  after the ussr put the first manmade object into earth orbit, there was a dedicated national effort to ensure american students were at least half as proficient in the sciences as their lil soviet counterparts.  (it wasnt a 'war on ignorance' either so it produced results)

where does creationism fit into 'no child left behind'?  what's the point of collectivist education strategies if all our children are left equally behind those educated in countries where science isnt a matter of moral correctness?

]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01kingbee on Evolution, Fact or Theory?Dr Guyhttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050
Bingo! If you want to put a sticker on your own personal science book, fine. But, do not put stickers on science texts in public schools. It is a stricly religious take on the issue, and that is what makes it unconstitutional.


What a shame of human cognizant.  You still dont get it.  You would dictate to a private citizen what to do with their private property, yet deny them the right to democratically decide what to put on their public property.  When was your last intelligent thought?  Pre-corporeal?


You have an out in this whole sordid mess that is no longer available to you.  it was called the ballot box, but by Fiat, a judge has just revoked that rtight, and you squeal with glee at the loss of more of your rights.


You truly are pitiable.

]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01Dr Guy on Evolution, Fact or Theory?whoman69http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050
Anybody? Not the intent, the content.


You can't ignore intent. Unless they are going to put a sticker on a science book that states that most of science is theoretical and not fact, then its unfair to do it only for evolution. That is something that is and should be talked about in the introduction to every science class, the difference between theory (that which cannot be proven) and law (that which has been proven). By singling out evolution, the message is created that somehow amongst all scientific theories, only evolution should be questioned.]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01whoman69 on Evolution, Fact or Theory?whoman69http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050
Anybody? Not the intent, the content.


You can't ignore intent. Unless they are going to put a sticker on a science book that states that most of science is theoretical and not fact, then its unfair to do it only for evolution. That is something that is and should be talked about in the introduction to every science class, the difference between theory (that which cannot be proven) and law (that which has been proven). By singling out evolution, the message is created that somehow amongst all scientific theories, only evolution should be questioned.]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01whoman69 on Evolution, Fact or Theory?dabehttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050
As for people who want to put stickers on the bible, put one on your own personal bible.


Bingo! If you want to put a sticker on your own personal science book, fine. But, do not put stickers on science texts in public schools. It is a stricly religious take on the issue, and that is what makes it unconstitutional.

This is not about atheists feeling good about themselves. Nor, is anyone trying to take religion away from anyone else. You get to practice whatever religion you want, in whatever place of worship you want, and at home if you want. You can pray in the streets, in public buildings, in schools. But, you must keep it personal, and not instituionalize religion. Not Christianity. Not Judaism. Not Hinduism, or Buddhism, or Islam, or anything else. All anyone who espouses the constitutional issue of the separation of church and state wants it that you do not force religion into public places, where it is not allowed, under the Constitution. This is not a hard concept folks. It's really, really freakin' simple. Mind numbingly simple.

As in, SIMPLE]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01dabe on Evolution, Fact or Theory?dabehttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050
Would funamentalists get angry were a disclaimer be put on bibles?


Great Point!!!!!]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01dabe on Evolution, Fact or Theory?dabehttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050
And this is the really scary part - this is about the 4th topic this week on which dabe & I agree. Maybe there was more to the earthquake/tsunami/earthwobble than we realize.


Don't be scared, Daiwa. Embrace it. Even though we don't always agree on stuff (lots of stuff), I like you. You've got heart and class and compassion. There's hope for you yet.

Cheers back at ya

]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01dabe on Evolution, Fact or Theory?dean4ushttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050 Also, this guy who wrote the book "Lonely Planets" talks about how if you take out evolution ans say its wrong, all the other fields of science kind of fall apart.]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01dean4us on Evolution, Fact or Theory?dean4ushttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050 Right on, Myrreader and others who brought up the fact that a scientific theory is different than the practical form of "theory" that many people here are confused with. Evolution is a theory because we can't go back in time and actually observe evolution.

Also, maybe I missed a post, but I don't think I saw a post here that picked up on the part of the sticker that says "regaarding the orgin of living things". It is not evolution's job to find out how life began, but how they changed, or EVOLVED. Cosmic evolution, the story of the universe, tries to describe different ways life could have begun, among other things about the life of the universe.

Check out this book/site that talks about cosmic evolution, written by this astrobiologist who onced worked for NASA. The site has a lot of resources.

http://www.funkyscience.net/lonelyplanets/]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01dean4us on Evolution, Fact or Theory?Daiwahttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050 OK, Helix.

You are quite right about the content being benign. You can run right out to your local street corner and start reciting the phrase from the sticker out loud without running afoul of the constitution. You can buy billboard space alongside your local interstate and put it up in big bold type. You can publish it in the newspaper once a week for the next decade if you want. And you can preach it from a pulpit every sabbath to your heart's content.

But explain for me exactly why such a sticker has a need to exist - without mentioning religion, God, the Bible or making any other religious reference. Why this theory and no other? Why on all science textbooks?

And if the intent is irrelevant, what are you upset about? If intent doesn't matter, there's no point in the content. In that sense, I agree with you - pointless content should not be ruled unconstitutional. But there's the rub - the whole point of the sticker is its intent. You can't divorce content from intent here, much as you'd like to. It's a disingenuous dodge.

Cheers,
Daiwa]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01Daiwa on Evolution, Fact or Theory?Dr Guyhttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050
A follow up article by MSNBC.

It is also not a red vs Blue issue.  It is Legislative vs Judicial Laws

]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01Dr Guy on Evolution, Fact or Theory?Zoologist03http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050
"overwhelming urge to choke the living hell out of every stupid person I meet".


...if I acted on that urge I'd have countless accounts of murder on my head...

The problem is anti-equalization. In an attempt to make atheists feel good about themselves, people of any religion are chastised for having said religion


So, very true Alex...

Evolution is a theory, that's all....maybe someone will prove it, maybe someone will disprove it. I'm sure someone is working on that right now. I don't see what everyone is really arguing about. Why don't we focus judges, scientists, etc. on trying to solve actual relevant problems. Poverty, famine, disease...are any of those theories?...I think not...let's get some people working on things that need to be taken care of instead of trying to find out if we popped into existence or we have shit-slinging ancestors, how's that sound?

~Zoo

]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01Zoologist03 on Evolution, Fact or Theory?Dr Guyhttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050
Cats and dogs mating? Would that be evolution in progress?

Daiwa, as for the sticker, as stupid as it may be, it did not violate any law nor was it unconstitutional. That's the point, the only point. Not whether or not evolution is the end all that beats all, or aliens, or God, or that stupid dog from down the street that keeps trying to hump my leg.

If a judge could rule everything that was stupid as unconsitutional, I'm sure many of us would be locked up for commiting unconstitutional acts on a daily basis. The ruling was stupid, in my opinion, and would be unconstitutional to make. Stupid or not, the sticker did not violate ANYTHING.

ANYTHING. ANYTHING. ANYTHING. ANYTHING.

Therefore, it should not have to be removed. It should not have even made it to COURT. It's like me taking you to court because you think I look fat in purple, which I would claim is because you are prejudice towards fat people and I'm rewarded damages because you "harmed" me by claiming I was fat. It is RIDICULOUS.

Why aren't you capable of seeing that? Every reply about God Vs Evolution missed the point. Yet that doesn't stop you from talking about it. BAH!

Exactly!  But the liberals will never stop legislating from the Bench.  A shame really.

]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01Dr Guy on Evolution, Fact or Theory?whoman69http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050 Almost everything in science is a theory. How come there has been no need to put a disclaimer on the theory of gravity? By treating evolution any different than other scientific theories, the fundamentalists are saying it is less valid. Evolution does not disprove Genesis unless one were to take a literal interpretation of the bible, which is idiotic. The bible is a work of faith, which by the way, also cannot be proven. Would funamentalists get angry were a disclaimer be put on bibles?]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01whoman69 on Evolution, Fact or Theory?kingbeehttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050
What next, dogs and cats living together?


should they also begin mating...

]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01kingbee on Evolution, Fact or Theory?kingbeehttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050philomedy posted an article recently about a law being proposed in virginia requiring women to report miscarriages within three days under penalty of felony indictment. nothing in the text of the proposed statute mentioned or alluded to the pro-life/pro-choice controversy. 

the bill's author may think it a clever end-run around roe v wade but like these stickers, ya gotta wonder about the validity of any moral code which would condone such a cruel scam.  

as far as the judge seein through the ruse, maybe it was a case of divine enlightenment?  

]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01kingbee on Evolution, Fact or Theory?latour999http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050
And this is the really scary part - this is about the 4th topic this week on which dabe & I agree. Maybe there was more to the earthquake/tsunami/earthwobble than we realize.

Cheers,
Daiwa


yeah, liberals and conservatives agreeing (in my case, myself and moderateman). What next, dogs and cats living together? Wierd.]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01latour999 on Evolution, Fact or Theory?Daiwahttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050 And this is the really scary part - this is about the 4th topic this week on which dabe & I agree. Maybe there was more to the earthquake/tsunami/earthwobble than we realize.

Cheers,
Daiwa]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01Daiwa on Evolution, Fact or Theory?Daiwahttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050
Is it unconstitutional to declare evolution not the sole definite explanation for life?


That misses the whole point. What, exactly, about the theory of evolution singles it out for such a disclaimer? The sticker didn't just show up in a vacuum, because a curriculum committee somewhere suddenly realized, "Omygosh, we have a theory in this textbook that may not be proven. All the other theories are accepted as proven so they're no problem, but how did this one unproven one slip by us during the purchasing review? Horrors. We have to do something to rectify that. How 'bout a sticker explaining that on the inside cover?"

The constitution in no way prevents you from believing that we all came from Mars, if you want, or from teaching it to your children - teach away. The constitution also contains no requirement that I be warned that a theory might be disputed. And it might have been better had the judge ruled the stickers stupid as opposed to unconstitutional, but what are you gonna do? The judge just saw the obvious - that those stickers would not exist but for evangelicals pushing for them, no matter the wording.

Darwin, we now know, was wrong in many of the details of his theory, but that in no way diminishes the validity of the theory of natural selection. We don't understand all there is to know about how evolution has played out, but we know for sure that is has played out. Whether God had anything to do with it or not. Furthermore, nothing about evolution is incompatible with the existence of God, a god, any god. Those who get their knickers all a-wad over the teaching of evolution in public schools can teach creationism in their homes without fear. Or is the argument so weak that it won't stand up to scrutiny in the light of incompatible facts? Any argument needing a sticker in its defense can't be too damn strong.

Cheers,
Daiwa]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01Daiwa on Evolution, Fact or Theory?Daiwahttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050
What's interesting to me is that one either has to corrupt science to make it fit the Bible, or in your case, corrupt the Bible to make it fit science.Either way, either the Bible is the infallible word of god or it isn't. If we start saying that Genesis is metaphorical in its "6 days" then why not say that the prophecies of the Messiah, the miracles of Christ, and indeed, the idea of God himself is metaphorical? Where do you draw the line? Arbitrarily where it makes you feel good? Are the Bible genealogies wrong? It's pretty clear in Genesis that "the evening and the morning were the first day" means one single day. Or couldn't God inspire man to actually write the truth? Reconciling religion with science means you either corrupt the science, such as the young earthers do, or you corrupt the Scripture to mean something dfferent than what it says. This whole idea "Old Earth Creationism" is a very new thing in the history of Christianity -- why did God wait so long to reveal it?


Myrr -

The most concise, intelligent and reasoned reply I've seen in a long time. Mega-insightfuls from me.

It's truly remarkable to see the occasional seizure of wisdom from such a whacked-out leftist. Maybe the medicine is helping. Or does Arkansas just do something to you after awhile?

Cheers,
Daiwa]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01Daiwa on Evolution, Fact or Theory?JE0192http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050 Link (for those who don't believe in evolution)

"But for two species of snake, at least, natural selection has produced a defence: the snakes have developed relatively smaller heads and longer bodies."


]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01JE0192 on Evolution, Fact or Theory?Dr Guyhttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050While a strict interpretation of the Bible's version of creation is hard to beleive for a science mind, there are enough holes in the theory of Evolution that probably means some other factor, unknown at this time, is in play.


While some laugh and belittle those who believe in Alien Intervention, the truth is such a theory does fill the holes.


In time, man will probably fill in the holes.  But there is as much evidence to support Alien intervention as there is for natural evolution.  To dismiss it just because you have NEVER SEEN AN ALIEN destroys your very argument of promoting a theory over a belief.  The simple truth is NEITHER has ever been seen by any recorded history, and is unlikely to ever be.


Until the holes are filled, to close your mind to any possibility is the true definition of narrowmindedness.


May the Schwartz be with you.

]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01Dr Guy on Evolution, Fact or Theory?Gideon MacLeishhttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Oh, one more thing, myrrander:


I was unaware that you were a scholar and had a full understanding of the Hebrew and Chaldean languages (remember, King James DID have the English version of the Bible translated from newer sources than we now have at our disposal, and with ambiguous words translated to the translator's bias).

]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01Gideon MacLeish on Evolution, Fact or Theory?Gideon MacLeishhttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050
Either 6 days = 6 days (Bible)

Or 6 days = Not 6 days (you)

Your first post already showed a corruption of scripture. Now, I admire your trying to make an archaic, anachronistic group of fairy tales relevant in the modern world -- I tried to do so for many years myself. I admire your being a thinking man, and teaching kids about different religions/creation myths -- these are good things. But that's still the way I see it that to make the bible compatible with science, one of them is corrupted. I mean, this is a book, after all, that has 4 legged birds, unicorns, dragons, a huge Jewish Empire under Solomon. Interesting reading, for sure, but so is most mythology.


I'm not even going to respond to this except to point you to my article "How the Left Was Lost", myrrander. The fact that you insist on hacking away at this area frankly is a poor show. I expected a little better.

]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01Gideon MacLeish on Evolution, Fact or Theory?Moderatemanhttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050 Alto I believe in creationism......... I think evolution has proved to be true also IE: the growth factor....and the intelligence factor also.. we are stronger ,bigger, faster than our ancestors, and that is evolution.]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01Moderateman on Evolution, Fact or Theory?Zoombahttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050 All science is partially a leap of faith... We don't know with 100% certainty that our ideas apply universally. Our understanding of physics improves with each passing year. Does this mean Newton was merely working on coming up with a faith structure and not a science? There are holes in evolution, because our knowledge is not complete, but it's complete enough for us to make that leap of faith to start accepting it as a possible fact.

The key is there are gaps to the evolutionary scheme... gaps imply that a good bit of it is filled in already.

Yes, "leap of faith" was intentional ]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01Zoomba on Evolution, Fact or Theory?drmilerhttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050

Reply #61 By: Zoomba - 1/14/2005 12:27:09 PM
Anyone remember when some crazy astronomer came up with the crazy theory that the universe didn't revolve around the Earth? Heretical stuff that was. It was based on observations and used existing knowledge of mathematics to reach the conclusion that in fact the Earth revolved around the sun, and the sun moved through the heavens amongst all the other stars, that we weren't the center of everything. Could he prove it beyond question? Nope, we had no ability at that point in time to actually physically measure what he was talking about. He proved it using our existing body of knowledge tied to observations.

We have observed species evolving on small scales (disease immunity, the differences between human beings from different areas of the world, animals developing new characteristics in new environments etc...) over relatively short periods of time (our ability to study these changes is fairly recent in human history). Science is often based on ideas gathered by observing the small and short-term, and then taking those known facts and expanding them to fit a larger model. We know how gravity works on Earth based on our observations and calculations, we can therefore determine what gravity is likely to be on other planets based on a number of known characteristics. The problem with providing unquestionable proof as to human evolution is that it likely took place over such an incredibly long period of time, that we simply don't notice the very subtle differences in what few fossils and artifacts we can find.

With evolution, we have observations and facts observed on a small scale, combine it with other knowns such as the extreme similarities between humans and apes, and we can construct a fairly decent theory that is as close to fact as anything we're likely to come up with on the subject.

With creationism, we have a book that says it was all done in 6 days. We have nothing approaching any form of proof, no observations that can be built up to support the idea.

Evolution has at least a foundation in proof, whereas creationism is entirely based on faith.


Yes but the holes in the evolutionary scheme can't be explained either. So by your thinking evolution is based at least partially in faith.]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01drmiler on Evolution, Fact or Theory?sandy2http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050
With creationism, we have a book that says it was all done in 6 days. We have nothing approaching any form of proof, no observations that can be built up to support the idea.


Actually, even further than this, we have things approaching proof which disprove this. ]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01sandy2 on Evolution, Fact or Theory?Zoombahttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050 Anyone remember when some crazy astronomer came up with the crazy theory that the universe didn't revolve around the Earth? Heretical stuff that was. It was based on observations and used existing knowledge of mathematics to reach the conclusion that in fact the Earth revolved around the sun, and the sun moved through the heavens amongst all the other stars, that we weren't the center of everything. Could he prove it beyond question? Nope, we had no ability at that point in time to actually physically measure what he was talking about. He proved it using our existing body of knowledge tied to observations.

We have observed species evolving on small scales (disease immunity, the differences between human beings from different areas of the world, animals developing new characteristics in new environments etc...) over relatively short periods of time (our ability to study these changes is fairly recent in human history). Science is often based on ideas gathered by observing the small and short-term, and then taking those known facts and expanding them to fit a larger model. We know how gravity works on Earth based on our observations and calculations, we can therefore determine what gravity is likely to be on other planets based on a number of known characteristics. The problem with providing unquestionable proof as to human evolution is that it likely took place over such an incredibly long period of time, that we simply don't notice the very subtle differences in what few fossils and artifacts we can find.

With evolution, we have observations and facts observed on a small scale, combine it with other knowns such as the extreme similarities between humans and apes, and we can construct a fairly decent theory that is as close to fact as anything we're likely to come up with on the subject.

With creationism, we have a book that says it was all done in 6 days. We have nothing approaching any form of proof, no observations that can be built up to support the idea.

Evolution has at least a foundation in proof, whereas creationism is entirely based on faith.]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01Zoomba on Evolution, Fact or Theory?Dr Guyhttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050
Dr. Guy, you are spreading nonsense. Stop while you are ahead. This argument can go nowhere but down from here. People that promote alien nonsense are known as crazies. Besides that point, creationalism has no place in a SCIENCE class. What part of that don't you and your other dr. counterpart understand?


Excuse me, I did not know I was speaking to GOD.  Please forgive me for doubting your omniscience.

]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01Dr Guy on Evolution, Fact or Theory?Dr Guyhttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050
It does not make it impossible to you. To me, it stems from religious ideology. It's that simple. And, it does not belong in public schools. Until alien intervention is proven scientifically, then I find it very hard to believe. Evolution is scientifically proven. If evolution stands alongside creationism, fine. You can believe the creationism part. But, it's religion, plain and simple, and I don't believe it. So no, it's not as plausible as evolution.


Evolution has not been proven, so should we ban that as well?  A theory means it is not a FACT.  get your facts straight.

]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01Dr Guy on Evolution, Fact or Theory?sandy2http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050 Dr. Guy, you are spreading nonsense. Stop while you are ahead. This argument can go nowhere but down from here. People that promote alien nonsense are known as crazies. Besides that point, creationalism has no place in a SCIENCE class. What part of that don't you and your other dr. counterpart understand? ]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01sandy2 on Evolution, Fact or Theory?dabehttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050 It does not make it impossible to you. To me, it stems from religious ideology. It's that simple. And, it does not belong in public schools. Until alien intervention is proven scientifically, then I find it very hard to believe. Evolution is scientifically proven. If evolution stands alongside creationism, fine. You can believe the creationism part. But, it's religion, plain and simple, and I don't believe it. So no, it's not as plausible as evolution.

Period.]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01dabe on Evolution, Fact or Theory?Dr Guyhttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Creationsim is just as plausible (at this point) as evolution, or Alien Intervention.  Just because you dont beleive does not make it impossible.

]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01Dr Guy on Evolution, Fact or Theory?dabehttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050 I do not want my kids to be tought creationism in schools. It is religion based, plain and simple. It is not based on any scientific evidence. In fact, science clearly disputes creationism as being religion based, and without scientific merit.

Evolution, on the other hand, is science based. Although not all the answers are know to humans, does not mean it's a religion. That's ridiculous. For creationists to profess that are merely trying to rationalize their creationism into the scientific community, and it will never work. The science of evolution, like all sciences, evolves as the knowledge base evolves, as more science is known and discovered. Creationism can never evolve because it is inherently a dead end, again because it is not based on any scientific evidence, but rather merely religious belief.

I don't understand what is so hard with this concept, and why creationist thinkers need to infuse all of society with their religious thinking. It doesn't belong in publicly schools, and it is unquestionably an infringement on the separation of church and state, unless it is taught as part of a comparaive religions course, or the like, and is clearly introduced strictly as religious thinking.
]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01dabe on Evolution, Fact or Theory?Myrranderhttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050
Okay first I would like to add to this discussion that Bohr's theory of the atom was once believed to be fact by most educated people, now it is barely talked about in chemistry class and generally (which is to say almost always) thought to be false. This is just one of many theories that was once considered fact and is now considered false. With that said saying that the theory of evolution is fact is total ludicrious and chances are we will never know if it is or isnt.


You are correct. But Atomic Theory is still taught, it's just been refined and revised. Evolutionary theory didn't stop with Darwin anymore than atomic theory stopped with Bohr. Just as quantum physics didn't stop with Einstein. And isn't that great? Science is always ready to admit mistakes and revise its thinking, which is more than can be said for the majority of religions of the world.

Yeah, I know I said I was finding a new game, but this is a damned amusing thread and I wanted to push it to two pages.]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01Myrrander on Evolution, Fact or Theory?Deferencehttp://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050 Evolution?

THEORY!

Let's keep diggin' for truth. ]]>http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050http://helixtheii.joeuser.com/article/61050Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:01 -04002008-10-06T13:01:01Deference on Evolution, Fact or Theory?